andyfalsetta

If as Orsetto suggested, the cocking mechanism is at fault, it is not difficult to remove the screws securing the mount to the lens, withdraw the tube and clean/lube the cocking spring and pawl. For those of us who have had these lenses apart, they are quite honestly the absolute most fragile of all Hasselblad lenses. Look at where the shutter is located, then measure the length of the lens barrel. That barrel is held on to the shutter with the same number of screws in the same aluminum casting as an 80 mm lens! What were they thinking?. You don't need to be a mechanical engineer to figure out the load on those screws is incredibly high. Bump your lens/lens hood into anything more rigid than a feather and you stress those poor little screws and their threads, causing the entire lens assembly to wobble until properly addressed during service. .

If you want to prove Rodeo Joe's theory, snip out a postage stamp sized square made out of the sticky part of "sticky notes". Stack up five or ten of them and place the stack dead center on the lens. Now do your shutter release test. In theory, the shutter would remain stuck for a lot longer if the mirror is now being held by the paper sticky notes. It sounds like the helicoid and lens group is completely out of position. This probably was done by a previous tech and the folks who just did your CLA just assembled it the way it was (thinking it was correct). And as Joe said, (other than the test I suggested) don't use that lens until it has been repaired.

"releasing the jam" doesn't provide a clear explanation of what you had previously done. If you are referring to using a screwdriver to wind the shutter release spring that would be one circumstance. However if you used a screw driver to follow Youtube wisdom, allowing the shutter release spring to unwind one cycle, that is a different circumstance. The latter procedure weakens the shutter release spring tension each time you do that maneuver. The result is that after a couple of these "work around repairs" the body will fairly consistently jam until the spring is wound correctly (four full turns), which requires a rather complete disassembly to achieve.

Dan, next time this happens, (since you had no film in the magazine) you could have slipped the film holder out of the film magazine. Then by lifting the small round door on the back, you could peer through the film gate, and the open auxiliary shutter flaps so you could insert a tool to reset the shutter.

Will not Hasselblad do this?

Q.G., The Hasselblad Historical site that you mention has been extremely helpful in many different ways. Lots of fantastic information up there. As relates to this particular Series One. I don't think I can pass up an invitation from you :) So yes, I would certainly like to have it included. Will this camera bring the total known examples up to 30? Why not send me a PM with the info you need and I will reply with the needed info. I also have interest in the Hasselblad Historical feature that supports matching original film magazines with their original camera and will explain what I have and have interest in finding a match for. Thanks, Andy

An early Hasselblad

Balance staff?

I have experienced this as well with camera equipment and also with wristwatch items. For example: I have followed auctions for exactly the same Omega movement that have essentially the same shipping charges, yet the first auction ended much higher than what the second ended at. I have also seen items not sell when listed as an auction and then sell for more than the original "Buy It Now" when it is relisted. Example" A set of Omega parts manuals - listed as an auction with $0.99 starting bid, and a Buy it Now of $20.00. No takers. The same seller relisted a week later as a straight "Buy It Now" of $30 and it sells. (smacking forehead). As you say, its not rational.

True. And I'll add another factor. A year or so ago, Hasselblad 1000Fs were $650 cameras all day long. I happened across one on eBay that had a ridiculous Buy It Now number. The seller didn't include photos in the listing. Only after dogging this lazy seller for more information did I get serial number info. Realizing it was a very rare one, I paid up. After that, asking prices seemed to go nuts for cameras that weren't special at all. I can't help but think that some buyers just cruise through "sold listings" and base their purchase decision off how much others paid - without understanding what others actually got. It can be a vicious cycle.

Who do I contact to have a few thousand 80mm Planar front elements 3D printed? I can also use 500C aux shutter clock springs.

I think the NEXT shot after firing off on that rig is the one you have to worry most about vibration (unless you wait fifteen minutes between exposures) :)

When shooting close ups (on a tripod) like minimum focus on the 80mm on my 500c or when using an extension tube, the vibration is real and although the average viewer may not see it, you don't have to be critical to see its impact - especially with digital. I have made a habit of pre-releasing the mirror for this reason.

blank

Tom, I have reached out to Hasselblad to learn more about the Certificates of Origin. As you point out, it could be a fake, or if these really are produced by Hasselblad, this one might have been completed by someone who mis-transcribed the information contained in the shipping ledger. If they are real, I would like to have one for a couple of my cameras. The shipping ledger is held by Hasselblad in Sweden, but there are two ways to get access to the information they contain: 1. Contact Hasselblad Customer Service (at the factory) and they will cheerfully research a serial number for you. (at least they were nice enough in the past to do it for me). or 2. There are two versions of Richard Nordin's "Hasselblad Compendium". The first is the red cover version many of us are familiar with. In a conversation with Richard a year or so ago, he mentioned I should locate a copy of the second version of the book. These are easily distinguished from the original by their blue cover. This second version is not only valuable because it contains many new bits of information Richard learned about since the first publishing, but equally important, it includes a DVD with digital images of all the brochures, photos, price lists, manuals, etc that are presented or referenced in the book. Even more interesting with this version is that Richard painstakingly photographed each page of the ledgers while he was researching the first version of the book. He has included them in a very straightforward format on this DVD. This would include the very first Hasselblads - known as "Series One", the next version of The Hasselblad - to become known as the 1600F, and the 1000F). I have found this invaluable as a resource - perhaps you will too. I have found only one or two pages of the ledger are missing, therefore practically any serial number Early Camera can be researched with the ledger pages contained in this DVD. I would suggest that anyone who has a red cover "Hasselblad Compendium" and has more than a passing interest in Hasselblads should locate this second version. I have used the ledger pages when considering the purchase of a camera to understand whether or not the film magazine, lens, and body were the originals. I have also used it just as a reference when reviewing various listings on eBay or elsewhere. Call me crazy but I find it interesting to understand how many cameras out there do and how many do not, actually contain their original assigned components. The caveat is that for many different reasons, there are voids in the data. As an example, when the earliest cameras were shipped, most of them went to the USA. Rather than have Kodak ship the Ektars to Sweden only so they could be put with the camera and shipped back to the USA, many of the Series Ones that were shipped to the USA do not have a lens assigned to them in the ledger pages. The distributor here in the USA held the allotment of Ektars and issued them as needed. The data from these assignments either was never captured or it did not make its way back to the factory.. But the vast remainder of data contains full serial number information. In this case I used the ledger pages to call into question the very incorrect information in that eBay listing. We know that Hasselblad is the world's best medium format system camera. Because of this it was common for a photographer to have multiple film magazines, bodies and lenses and they could very easily be intermixed. In spite of this, there are many that pop up for sale still in their original configuration. From a value perspective, I would place a higher value on one that is 100% intact - as originally shipped from the factory - and I suspect most of us would as well if only we knew about the Shipping Ledger. To me it opens up an entirely new dimension about the cameras some 70 years after their introduction! Thanks again Tom for your interest and perspective on this. Andy

Many other books, and even the factory publications, cite the 1000f being available in 1952 Tom, Thanks for the reply and additional information. I have dug deeper and have more info to help solve the puzzle. But first, when I read Nordin's line: "Many other books, and even the factory publications, cite the 1000f being available in 1952", I interpret it based on the context of his very frequent "calling out" or more politely, questioning, information created for marketing purposes. My feeling is he was implying "they may have said this, but its hard to believe given everything else that is documented". I tend to think that Nordin's statement that the 1000F was made in 1953 and available in 1954 is factual. Its possible that a prototype was built earlier than 1953; I would welcome information to substantiate this. One source of data is Hasselblad's own shipping records. And that brings us to the next piece of this puzzle. Those who have a copy of Nordin's "Hasselblad Compendium" might agree it is the most exhaustive book on a particular camera series than any other author has been able to assemble - regarding any camera. He has done one hell of a job in my opinion. Central to many of his factual statements on the Early Cameras is data from the Hasselblad Shipping Ledger. It is within this document that this puzzle piece is found. The seller provides a "Hasselblad Certificate of Origin" representing a camera with a serial number of CH12190 is a 1952 1000f shipped on October 10, 1952. Considering that a "CH" prefix in the serial number is code for "1952" this would imply the camera is a 1600F. In fact the shipping ledger confirms that CH12190 was a 1600F that was shipped to Paris Photo on October 24, 1952 (14 days later than the Certificate of Origin indicates). (Could this have been the day it arrived in Paris? I doubt Hasselblad had "delivery authentication" back in 1952.) The ledger also indicates the 1600F serial number CH12190 was replaced by a 1000F with serial number 16877. A check of the shipping ledger for that serial number indicates it was shipped to Paris Photo on March 1, 1956. In addition, the shipping ledger shows the lens originally shipped with the 1600F is not the lens on the 1000F that is for sale today. So, what can we take from this? First, if Hasselblad really does provide a Certificate of Origin upon request, they contain six data points. On this one, three of them are dead wrong. I would really question the value of one given the first one I've seen is so horribly wrong. Second, the whereabouts of 1600F CH12190 will probably never be known. It might have been used for parts, it might have been used as a training aid or it might have been used to line a trash can at the service center in Sweden. Third, the camera in the listing is not CH12190. This camera is CP16877 with a serial number engraving of CH1290 that looks like it was done in a machine shop. I suspect most don't care about this level of detail today, but although this might change in the future, the facts shouldn't.

1000F CH12190

This morning a good friend sent me a link to a Hasselblad 1000F listing he thought I should be aware of. He does this often and my marriage is getting weaker by the day, but he's like a brother so what can I do? When I first saw the listing I thought it was a little early for an April Fools joke. The listing is for a 1952 1000F for the rather princely sum of $2300. The ad goes on to talk about a Hasselblad "Certificate of Origin" and how this camera is special. Here are a couple of photos from the listing. I'm no expert but to me the only thing special is its cosmetic condition. So much of the listing seems wrong and I thought our resident Hasselblad experts would care to comment. Things I wonder about: - a Certificate of Origin? - a 1000F produced in the midst of the 1600F model run years? (I am aware of the preproduction 1000Fs but according to Hasselblad records included in Richard Nordin's wonderful book, and my buddy's and my research - this ain't one of them.) - delivery date for the camera as stated on the Certificate is BEFORE Hasselblad shipped it? - the veracity of the serial number engraving is highly questionable. I realize this sort of thing is of little or no interest to most people, and you are probably better off for it. But if you have read this far, you might agree that as these cameras get older, and more and more people with first-hand knowledge pass on, there should be an effort to keep the record straight when questionable information surfaces. Can anyone comment or add to this?

To get started with your search, just buy one of each camera Zeiss Ikon made.

Not sure if the shutter release mechanism is the same but with a 500C C/M 503, etc. the front plate has to be removed to free that gear up. Then you put four complete clockwise rotations into the gear/spring and reinstall the front plate. Luckily there is an accommodation in the inner mechanism (hole in a gear) to allow you to install a paper clip to lock the wound up spring as you reassemble it. This is covered in the 503 manual (thanks Orsetto).

It does if the shutter curtain doesn't close. :) (Pentacon 6?)

From a "superficial" perspective, the CF is an f4 while the Jena is F2.8. The CF achieves this using 5 aperture blades while the Jena uses a remarkable 18. I've not used the CF so I can't comment on how it performs in comparison. Comments from our usual list of experts though would be encouraged.

When new and untouched, these Super Ikontas have smooth focus action. The knurled wheel performs well getting focusing done quickly and effortlessly. Once the helicoid is damaged the knurled knob becomes a finger irritating sawblade. I certainly am not casting any doubt on what your seller/technician said. As he indicated, it probably came to him in that condition and he worked it as best he can. What causes this is when a bonehead damages some of the helicoid threads when they reinstall the lens in its holder. With patience and the right tools, you can reshape the threads and get it to work much more smoothly. Also, if the lens has not been installed in absolutely the correct set of threads, you will get stiff action as well as incorrect infinity focus. Use of Henry Scherer's special Zeiss lube is absolutely going to make it worse. You need a very thin synthetic lube once the helicoid starts showing symptoms such as what you are seeing.

Yes it sounds like the mechanism is sluggish and a cleaning is in order. Bear in mind that if the body has reached this point in its maintenance life, the lens shutter is probably reaching that point as well.